ArticlePloS one2024
Automated monitoring of brush use in dairy cattle.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brushing as Environmental Enrichment in Dairy Cattle: Effects of Different Brushing Modalities on Behavior, Health, and Production.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Computer Vision in Dairy Farm Management: A Literature Review of Current Applications and Future Perspectives.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Measuring minds: Understanding the mental states of dairy cattle in different management conditions.JDS communications · 2025Article
- How dairy heifers initially respond to freestalls: The effect of neck-rail placement.JDS communications · 2025Article
- Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Access to brushes allows for natural scratching behaviors in cattle, especially in confined indoor settings. Cattle are motivated to use brushes, but brush use varies with multiple factors including social hierarchy and health. Brush use might serve an indicator of cow health or welfare, but practical application of these measures requires accurate and automated monitoring tools. This study describes a machine learning approach to monitor brush use by dairy cattle. We aimed to capture the daily brush use by integrating data on the rotation of a mechanical brush with data on cow identify derived from either 1) low-frequency radio frequency identification or 2) a computer vision system using fiducial markers. We found that the computer vision system outperformed the RFID system in accuracy, and that the machine learning algorithms enhanced the precision of the brush use estimates. This study presents the first description of a fiducial marker-based computer vision system for monitoring individual cattle behavior in a group setting; this approach could be applied to develop automated measures of other behaviors with the potential to better assess welfare and improve the care for farm animals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.